I thought this might be of interest. All film and no shutter:
http://tinyurl.com/6wxwmqs
I thought this might be of interest. All film and no shutter:
http://tinyurl.com/6wxwmqs
"I meant what I said, not what you heard"--Jflavell
40 megapixels??? Be a lot more than that...
The real experience of aurora borealis is the constantly changing light/colour effects, motions and twists. No still photograph can ever give even a slight impression of the minute/hour long ballet!
http://www.prairiejournal.com/online...ure/Page_1.htm
http://www.spaceweather.com
http://www.alaskaphotographyblog.com...-camera/Photos of Northern Lights can be wonderful. Helps that we are in a couple years of active sunspot cycles.
Some nice images from the guy. I don't think film or digital makes much difference at all other than in cost to produce the images.
What is an 'extreme photographer' anyhow? I thought it was those using 12x20 view cameras?
I think the reporter ma have made an error in detail, or I'm missing something.
His huge 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 films (?) cost about $35 per shot???
My experience with the press is that every article has incorrect facts, and they take great liberty in their quotes. It does not surprise me that there would be errors in stated file sizes or costs.
Every news story I have been in, or have first hand knowledge of, always has had several major errors that could have been easily checked and corrected. Or avoided entirely had the "journalist" paid attention. This is with the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.
I keep reminding myself of this whenever I read or see the news.
I like the photos, I wonder why some of the horizons are blurred?
Dennis Anderson's bio page
There are pictures of his home-made "Frankencamera" and a 4x5 with a fisheye lens on it. Anybody recognize the lenses?
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
The one on the left is a Wild Heerbrugg Falconar 98mm f1.4, a very desirable aerial lens.
Bookmarks